Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Seems they can't see the evidence even if it's staring at them in the face. In the followimg link, star formation has nothing to do with gravitationally collapsing gas clouds. There is highly energetic streams of matter like gas and particles being ejected from the galaxy's core at near relativistic speeds. Highly energetic electromagnetic radiation and tremendous hydrogen gas velocity will form the stars. Then, these stars fall back unside the galactic spiral and begin their orbit around the galaxy's core. It's a perpetual process. No need for ad hoc inventions or gravity.

To create a star - a huge amount of space or a better way to say 'aether' is needed. This is where the black holes come into the equation. Stars and black holes cannot exist without each other. Electricity is a disturbance in a vacuum. With one direction, it creates 2 opposite pressures. One arm is reaching toward a cold vacuum and the other arm is reaching toward the center of the stars or maximum pressure and potential.Disintegration - de-polarizationis the same effect.Bulge in the middle due to rotation and vortex or energy dissipation in the middle. Magnetic poles slowly move from poles of rotation to the disappearance in the equatorial planes. Moons are also product of the same nature processes within planets.Our biggest stumbling block within the basic knowledge of zero universe. 0---0---0 Cathode---anode---Cathode. Everything starts from 0 cathodes towards anode in the center and then reaction, turning inside out, anode becoming cathode and outside cathodes turning into anodes. We cannot move too much further if we cannot cross this barrier. This requires many pages, but for now, let's begin with this. If you see the errors, point them out explicitly please.

There has never been evidence for an aether. Black holes are mathemagical concepts we do not believe in. Neither does the Electric Universe for that matter. Einstein's Relativity is also out of the equation. The evolution of astrophysics has been delayed by a hundred years because of Einstein, Hubble with his redshift, and Lemaître with his Big Bang creationism.

To remind you, Electro. Inner gases are seeds of elements and they are throughout the universe. When the conditions for life on a planet are ready, life appears. Sorry, no prince on a comet seeding planets with life. The best would be to go and tell a chemist that there are no inner gases and see how far it will take you. There is nothing else but cold dark space. Cold generates, generation heats ... electricity has nothing to compress but cold, black space. We cannot work anymore with the belief system. Belief is something that someone else told us and we were too lazy to search for ourselves. Now we must have knowledge to move past a pile of misconceptions.Picture of the universe consists of 2 black arms of gravitation and 2 bright arms of radiation and until someone is ready to see the obvious, no one can do it for him.

Yes, gases in space are seed for the elements, of course. Those gases form stars, which in turn evolve into planets. As for life, well, we see it on Earth, but it may be a very rare occurrence by chance. We might never find anything else in the galaxy, other than possible microscopic organisms.

I wrote the paper in one go, it is the only way i can write ( i cant really write that well i guess), i see my sentence structure can be better (especially the beginning were you stumbled), it does flow as speaking language, but without structure in writing it can be read wrong/or difficult.

About WISE1828*, it is tentative because i am not sure about the mainstream discovery of it as a radius is not listed, the temperature does fit.

Basically it amounts to any size rock/mineral that is composed of crystalline structure to have needed to be formed from a larger body (a stable one), that had at least an escape velocity of the volatile material it is composed of.

for instance if oxygen is in the rocks/minerals of an asteroid, then that asteroid was for sure a part of a larger body, because the oxygen has a high enough velocity to escape the gravitation of the asteroid, so it would have never combined into molecules to form rocks/minerals to begin with.

It is simple reasoning I think. Though it does grave damage to the dust and pebbles to planets model of establishment.

Been reading about "dusty plasmas". In one of your articles, you were criticizing accretion, saying in one instance that it was absent "charged particles". I wasn't aware of dusty plasmas. For me, plasma is ionized "gas". So, if we have charged dusty plasma, can we still completely ignore the accretion model? What's your take, Jeffrey?

Electro wrote:Been reading about "dusty plasmas". In one of your articles, you were criticizing accretion, saying in one instance that it was absent "charged particles". I wasn't aware of dusty plasmas. For me, plasma is ionized "gas". So, if we have charged dusty plasma, can we still completely ignore the accretion model? What's your take, Jeffrey?

Yes, we can, no we can not, but the dusty plasma happens on a larger scale, where current filaments go through the dusty plasma and form the stars and thus the planets... only plasmatic objects are formed this way. Not fully differentiated earth like worlds. At least thats my view.

Electro wrote:Been reading about "dusty plasmas". In one of your articles, you were criticizing accretion, saying in one instance that it was absent "charged particles". I wasn't aware of dusty plasmas. For me, plasma is ionized "gas". So, if we have charged dusty plasma, can we still completely ignore the accretion model? What's your take, Jeffrey?

Yes, we can, no we can not, but the dusty plasma happens on a larger scale, where current filaments go through the dusty plasma and form the stars and thus the planets... only plasmatic objects are formed this way. Not fully differentiated earth like worlds. At least thats my view.

Regards,Daniel

Sorry, Daniel, but I don't understand. Star and planet formation in GTSM or EU has nothing to do with accretion. It's z-pinch OR accretion. To me, z-pinch is definitely the most likely candidate though. However, I have recently been challenged by a "mainstreamer" with this "dusty" plasma.

Been reading a lot on Electric Universe theory lately. Not that I do not agree with GTSM, on the contrary, but, I needed to consider a larger picture of the Universe. A complete cosmology. To me, there's no doubt in my mind the Universe is electric. Even GTSM agrees with electric star formation at least.

As you've mentioned a few times, EU, unfortunately, does not say much about planet formation. However, it does assert that planets come from stars, their cores specifically. But, EU gives very few details about the precise process of planet formation within a star. It does mention Marklund Convection and electrosratic deposition as an explanation for the different layers in planets, but that's about as far as it will go. It has stars or brown dwarfs spitting out gas giants, and gas giants spitting out rocky planets. But, no real explanation for the mechanisms involved in such ejections. EU sees Venus as a very young planet, one of Saturn's babies... Seems to me GTSM is the answer. It would complete the EU theory nicely with details it desperately needs. Heavy elements are fused in the photosphere of stars, and then redistributed inside by Marklund Convection and ionization potentials. Electrostatic deposition then forms the different layers of the core.

The use of mythology, in my opinion, as well as catastrophism à la Velikovsky, has for certain been detrimental to EU's acceptance in the scientific community. The Electric Universe theory certainly didn't need mythology to make its point. Intelligent man appeared around 50 000 years ago. It would be quite unlikely that our solar system would have known a radical rearrangement during that short period, and we know Venus is a lot older than that. It doesn't even have a magnetic field!

That being said, I still believe EU has a much better understanding of what is really going on in our Universe than mainstream astronomers. I also believe electrical star birth and evolution theory would benefit from both EU and GTSM together. So, Jeffrey, have you ever considered contacting Wal Thornhill or David Talbott and perhaps offering some kind of "partnership"? It would probably mean abandoning the idea of stars being simple dissipative systems without any external power supply. Like EU, I do not believe there are islands in empty space. If a star is not internally powered by nuclear fusion, it has to come from the outside! Everything seems to be connected electrically, the stars being transistors, and galaxy cores being plasmoids. Evidence for these giant galactic filaments, or plasma streams, or Birkland currents is being discovered by mainstream astronomers on a regular basis. Same for electromagnetic phenomena in galaxies and galaxy jets. At least, we have to consider Plasma Cosmology, where EU finds its origins.